Malloy Seeking To Dismiss Lawsuit By State Police Union Over Layoff Of 56 Rookie Troopers; 1,248 Law Cited

HARTFORD -- The state police union cited the landmark Sheff vs. O'Neill school desegregation case Thursday in asking a judge to reverse the layoffs of 56 rookie troopers and enforce the law that says the state must have a minimum of 1,248 troopers.

Lawyers for the union and the state argued over whether a Superior Court judge has the power to overrule political and budgetary decisions by the governor -- in another branch of government.

The union said the education case showed that the court has wide jurisdiction over matters of public policy and is empowered to enforce the law that was enacted by the legislature.State law says Connecticut must have a minimum of 1,248 troopers, and the two sides argued Thursday over whether that number is mandatory. The state has ignored the law at various times in the past decade and even suspended it for three years during tough fiscal times. But Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell was in compliance in February 2009 when the state had 1,283 troopers.

That number has been falling in recent years, and it dropped to 184 below the statutory minimum when Gov. Dannel P. Malloy laid off the 56 troopers in the past few weeks.

After the union filed a lawsuit to block the layoffs, the Malloy administration countered with a motion to dismiss the suit that was the subject of Thursday's hearing. It is arguing that the law is not mandatory and that the troopers should not be rehired.

Superior Court Judge James Graham asked both sides to file supplemental legal briefs by 5 p.m. Monday, and he did not provide an immediate date for a ruling on the motion to dismiss the case.

"We're very confident in our position,'' said Sgt. Andrew Matthews, the president of the state police union. "We recognize that the judge is in a difficult position in making this decision. ... We believe the intent of the legislature was not only a public safety issue, but a trooper safety issue.''

While 56 rookies have been laid off, 33 veteran troopers have filed applications for retirement that would be effective October 1. That date is important because the state's healthcare and pension rules will change for employees leaving after that date.

In a move that he called retaliatory by the Malloy administration for his outspoken views on the layoffs and other issues, Matthews was reassigned to become a patrol sergeant for one day per month at Troop H in Hartford. He declined to comment Thursday on his previous statement that the union was considering legal action to block his reassignment.

In a 36-page brief on the layoffs, the union's lawyer asserted that the state's claim of sovereign immunity does not apply because the state has failed to comply with the law.

"Because the defendants are violating General Statutes 29-4, they cannot hide behind the shield of sovereign immunity to protect their unlawful conduct,'' the brief states. Sovereign immunity is a long-held legal doctrine that says the state is not subject to civil lawsuits, which dates back to the concept that "the king can do no wrong.''

The union has already suffered an initial setback in its effort to prevent the layoffs. Last month, the union lost its request for an immediate injunction to block them. A Superior Court judge in Hartford denied the request, siding with the Malloy administration and allowing the layoffs to take place.

The first 34 troopers left their positions last month, and the remaining 22 were laid off Thursday.After a debate by the legislature about staffing, Gov. John G. Rowland in June 1998 signed a bill into law mandating that the state must have at least 1,248 troopers. The law took effect in July 2001, allowing time for the state to boost the number of troopers gradually.

The state is arguing that the troopers' union cannot sue because of sovereign immunity. The union brief notes that the state claims that "there has been no statutory waiver or permission to sue from the claims commissioner, the conduct of the defendants was not in excess of statutory authority, and there is no substantial constitutional violation.''

The union argues that their members have standing in the case because the layoffs affect "the state police union's finances by further reducing its membership and collection of dues.''